Case 4:12-cv MWB-TMB Document 32 Filed 11/15/12 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
|
|
- Damon Hubbard
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Case 412-cv MWB-TMB Document 32 Filed 11/15/12 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LINDA M. HAGERMAN, and CIVIL ACTION NO. 4CV HOWARD R. HAGERMAN, a/k/a BILL HAGERMAN, wife and husband, Plaintiffs (Judge Conner) v. (Magistrate Judge Blewitt) ANADARKO E & P CO., LP, JIM BOURBEAU LAND SERVICE, LLC, and DAVID K. SHIPE, a/k/a DAVE SHIPE, Defendants REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION I. Background. The above action was filed on May 16, 2012, by Plaintiffs Linda M. Hagerman and Howard R. Hagerman, through counsel. (Doc. 1). Plaintiffs attached Exhibits to their Complaint, Exs. A-F. 1 Defendants are Anadarko E & P Co., LP Anadarko, Jim Bourbeau Land Service, LLC ( Bourbeau ), and David K. Shipe. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs raise eleven (11) Counts and basically allege that Defendants filed a fraudulent oil and gas lease with respect to their acre property located in Cascade Township, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. In particular, Plaintiffs allege that Plaintiff Linda Hagerman did sign an oil and gas lease with Defendant Anadarko on May 27, 2006, but that 1 The Court can consider Plaintiffs Exhibits submitted with their Complaint for present purposes. See Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir.1993).
2 Case 412-cv MWB-TMB Document 32 Filed 11/15/12 Page 2 of 13 the lease Defendant Anadarko filed with the Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, Recorder of Deeds was fraudulent and not the lease they signed. Jurisdiction of this Court is alleged to be based upon diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). As this is a case based upon diversity jurisdiction of this Court, 28 U.S.C. 1332, we apply Pennsylvania law. See Moore v. Kulicke & Soffa Industries, Inc., 318 F.3d 561, 563 (3d Cir. 2003). Plaintiffs served Defendants with their Complaint. On September 4, 2012, Defendant Bourbeau filed its Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint with Affirmative Defenses. (Doc. 15). Also, on September 4, 2012, Defendant Anadarko filed a Motion for Partial Dismissal of Plaintiffs Complaint pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), arguing that Plaintiffs claim in Count V of their Complaint alleging that Defendant Anadarko violated the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ( UTPCPL ), 73 P.S , et seq., failed to state a claim. (Doc. 16). On September 18, 2012, Defendant Anadarko filed its brief in support of its Motion for Partial Dismissal with attachments. (Doc. 17). On October 2, 2012, Plaintiffs filed their opposition brief to Defendant Anadarko s Motion for Partial Dismissal. (Doc. 21). Defendant Anadarko filed its 2 reply brief with an attachment on October 16, (Doc. 23). After being granted an extension of time, on October 10, 2012, Defendant Shipe filed his Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint with Affirmative Defenses and Cross Claims against Defendants Anadarko and Bourbeau. (Doc. 22). Defendants Anadarko and Bourbeau both requested and 2 Defendant Anadarko s attachments to its briefs are copies of unpublished opinions on which it relies. 2
3 Case 412-cv MWB-TMB Document 32 Filed 11/15/12 Page 3 of 13 were granted extensions of time until November 14, 2012, to file their Answers to Defendant Shipe s Cross Claims against them. (Docs. 26 & 27). 3 Defendant Anadarko s Motion is ripe for disposition. II. Allegations of Count V of the Complaint. 4 In Count V of their Complaint, Plaintiffs aver that Defendants committed various unfair, deceptive and unconscionable acts and practices in violation of the UTPCPL, 73 P.S (4), regarding the oil and gas lease Linda Hagerman signed on May 27, 2006, with respect to their acre property located in Cascade Township, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants made false misrepresentations regarding the material terms of their oil and gas lease agreement and, that Defendants falsified the lease agreement by attaching the signature page Plaintiff Linda Hagerman signed to a new and materially different lease document. (Doc. 1, pp ). Specifically, Plaintiffs aver that Defendants unilaterally and without Plaintiffs consent altered Plaintiffs lease from a five (5) year primary term with a right of first refusal to a renew at negotiated competitive commercial terms, to a five (5) year primary term with an option to renew the lease for an additional five (5) years at the same per acre lease rate contracted for in (Id., p. 26, 151). Plaintiffs aver that the original per acre lease rate in 2006 for their parcel was $19, and that the per acre lease rate at the time the original, unaltered lease expired on May 12, 2011, was believed to be between $584, and $1,343, for their parcel. (Id., p. 27, 3 The undersigned has been assigned this case for pre-trial matters. 4 We construe Plaintiffs as referring to all three (3) Defendants in Count V. 3
4 Case 412-cv MWB-TMB Document 32 Filed 11/15/12 Page 4 of ). Further, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Anadarko intentional recorded the falsified lease with the Lycoming County Recorder of Deeds as if it were the original oil and gas lease actually signed by Linda Hagerman. (Id., p. 27, 154). Plaintiffs state that they justifiably relied upon the misrepresentations of Defendants regrading ther terms of their lease. (Id., p. 28, 163). Additionally, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant Anadarko refused to record a Release of the falsified lease it recorded with the Lycoming County Recorder of Deeds to clear title to Plaintiffs title to their acre property located in Cascade Township even though Anadarko knew that the lease it recorded was materially altered without Plaintiffs knowledge and consent. (Id., p. 27, ). Plaintiffs also allege that a representative of Defendant Anadarko made deceptive and fraudulent statements regarding the poor quality of Plaintiffs property for oil and gas development and production in order to convince Plaintiffs to accept a lease acreage price below fair market value. Moreover, Plaintiffs aver that the fraudulent and deceptive conduct of Defendants created the appearance that their acre property located in Cascade Township was encumbered by a valid lease which deterred third party oil and gas leasing companies from negotiating with them. (Id., p. 28, s ). (Id., p. 29). As relief in Count V, Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages against Defendants. III. Motion to Dismiss Standard. stated I n Reisinger v. Luzerne County, 712 F.Supp. 2d 332, (M.D. Pa. 2010), the Court The Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently set out the appropriate standard applicable to a motion to dismiss in light of the United States Supreme Court's 4
5 Case 412-cv MWB-TMB Document 32 Filed 11/15/12 Page 5 of 13 decisions Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 433 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, --- U.S. ----, 129 S.Ct (2009). [T]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true to state a claim that relief is plausible on its face. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The Court emphasized that only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss. Id. at Moreover, it continued, [d]etermining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will... be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. Id. (citation omitted). McTernan v. City of York, 577 F.3d 521, 530 (3d Cir.2009). The Circuit Court discussed the effects of Twombly and Iqbal in detail and provided a road map for district courts presented with a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim in a case filed just a week before McTernan, Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir.2009). [D]istrict courts should conduct a two-part analysis. First, the factual and legal elements of a claim should be separated. The District Court must accept all of the complaint's well-pleaded facts as true, but may disregard any legal conclusions. [ Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949.] Second, a District Court must then determine whether the facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to show that the plaintiff has a plausible claim for relief. Id. at In other words, a complaint must do more than allege a plaintiff's entitlement to relief. A complaint has to show such an entitlement with its facts. See Philips [v. Co. of Allegheny], 515 F.3d [224,] [ (3d Cir.2008) ]. As the Supreme Court instructed in Iqbal, [w]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not show[n] - that the pleader is entitled to relief. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at This plausibility determination will be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense. Id. Fowler, 578 F.3d at The Circuit Court's guidance makes clear that legal conclusions are not entitled to the same deference as well-pled facts. In other words, the court is not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation. Guirguis v. Movers Specialty Services, Inc., No , 2009 WL , at *2 (3d Cir. Sept. 24, 2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555) (not precedential). 5
6 Case 412-cv MWB-TMB Document 32 Filed 11/15/12 Page 6 of 13 IV. Discussion. As stated, Defendant Anadarko has moved to dismiss Count V of Plaintiffs Complaint, which 5 as detailed above, alleges that Defendants violated the UTPCPL. We thus must address the issue of whether the Plaintiffs Count V under the Pennsylvania UTPCPL states a claim for which relief can be granted. In its Motion to Dismiss, Defendant Anadarko argues, in part, that Count V of Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a cause of action and that this Count should be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) since Plaintiffs failed to allege that Linda Hagerman signed the oil and gas lease primarily for personal, family or household purposes as required for a private action under the UTPCPL, 73 P.S (a). In 1976, 73 P.S was added... to expressly provide parties victimized by practices prohibited thereby with a private cause of action against those who victimized them. In re Barker, 251 F.R. 250, 261 (E.D. Pa. 2000)(citation omitted). Further, 73 P.S (a) is often the only section that specifically provides a private cause of action to aggrieved consumers.... Id. The UTPCPL allows a private action to be filed under 73 P.S (a) by [a]ny person who purchases or leases goods or services primarily for personal, family or household purposes and thereby suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a result of the use or employment by any person of a method, act of practice declared unlawful by section 3 of this act [ 201-3], may bring a private action to recover actual damages or one hundred dollars ($100), whichever is greater. (emphasis added). The UTPCPL does not define purchaser or 5 While Plaintiffs repeatedly refer to Defendants in Count V, they only specifically mention Defendant Anadarko in this count. 6
7 Case 412-cv MWB-TMB Document 32 Filed 11/15/12 Page 7 of 13 household purpose. See Balderston v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 285 F.3d 238, 241 (3d Cir. 2002). The UTPCPL unambiguously permits only persons who have purchased or leased goods or services to sue. Id.(citation omitted). The UTPCPL protects consumers of goods and services from unfair or deceptive trade practices or acts. Smith v. Commercial Banking Corp., 866 F.2d 576, 581 (3d Cir. 1989). The UTPCPL attempts to put sellers and consumers on a level playing field. Id. the UTPCPL is to be liberally construed. Keller v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 733 A.2d 642, 646 (Pa.Super. 1999). Plaintiffs can also seek treble damages, attorney fees and costs under 73 P.S (a). An individual must establish the following elements to raise a private action under the UTPCPL 1) that he or she is a purchaser or lessee; 2) that the transaction is dealing with goods or services ; 3) that the good or service was primarily for personal, family, or household purposes; and 4) that he or she suffered damages arising from the purchase or lease of goods or services. Keller v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 733 A.2d at 646(citing 73 P.S ). Thus, [t]he UTPCPL prohibits [u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce P.S Portis v. River House Assoc., L.P., 498 F.Supp2d 746, 751 (M.D. Pa. 2007). The Portis Court stated that the UTPCPL clearly permits private actors to bring suit only when they purchase or lease goods or services[] primarily for personal, family or household purposes and, that it is well-established that the UTPCPL applies to residential leases.... Id. at 752(citation omitted). Additionally, [t]he UTPCPL is designed to protect the public from fraud and deceptive business practices. Novinger Group, Inc. v. Hartford Ins., Inc., 514 F.Supp.2d 662, 670 (M.D. Pa. 2007)(citations omitted). 7
8 Case 412-cv MWB-TMB Document 32 Filed 11/15/12 Page 8 of 13 Whether a purchase is for personal, family or household purposes depends on the purpose of the purchase, not the type of product purchased. Id.(citation omitted)(emphasis in original). If a Plaintiff fails to allege that he purchased or leased goods or services for personal, family or household purposes, he lacks standing to raise a cause of action under the UTPCPL. Id.(citations omitted). In the present case, we agree with Defendant Anadarko that in Count V, Plaintiffs have failed to allege that Linda Hagerman signed the oil and gas lease with it primarily for personal, family or household purposes. Plaintiffs state that their allegations are sufficient in Count V, when read in the context of their entire Complaint, to state a claim under the UTPCPL since they aver that Linda Hagerman signed an oil and gas lease with Defendant Anadarko with respect to their acre property, which had a cabin on it, and since it is clear from their pleading that Linda signed the lease in her individual capacity. Plaintiffs cite to three paragraphs in their Complaint to support their contention, namely, s 11, 16 and 44. We concur with Defendant Anadarko that [n]one of these allegations address why Ms. Hagerman signed the lease or whether she entered into the lease for any particular purpose. (Doc. 23, p. 5). Also, as Defendant Anadarko correctly point out (Id., p. 6), simply because Linda Hagerman signed the oil and gas lease in her individual capacity does not indicate what the primary purpose of the lease was and whether it was a business investment or a consumer transaction. Further, we agree with Defendant Anadarko (Doc. 23, pp. 7-10) that Plaintiffs Complaint does not sufficiently state the other required elements of a private action under the UTPCPL as delineated by the Court in Keller v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., 733 A.2d at
9 Case 412-cv MWB-TMB Document 32 Filed 11/15/12 Page 9 of 13 Thus, we find that Plaintiffs have not satisfied the threshold element required to bring a private action under the UTPCPL since they failed to allege facts that the oil and gas lease was primarily for personal, family or household purposes. As such, we shall recommend that Defendant Anadarko s Motion to Dismiss Count V of Plaintiffs Complaint be granted and that this 6 Count be dismissed without prejudice. Based on the above discussion, we do not find at this time that it would be futile for Plaintiffs to seek leave of court to file an Amended Complaint with respect to their UTPCPL claim in Count V. See Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1982); Shane v. 6 Defendant Anadarko also argues that Plaintiffs UTPCPL claim should be dismissed since they failed to allege facts showing that Linda Hagerman signed a lease for goods and services and that Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring a private action under the UTPCPL since Ms. Hagerman was not a purchaser or lessee. The parties concur that there is no controlling cases regarding the issue of whether an oil and gas lease is a lease for goods or services for purposes of (a) of the UTPCPL. Also, Defendant Anadarko states that Plaintiffs are not purchasers or consumers of goods or services. Defendant Anadarko states that Plaintiffs have not cited to any case in which the court found that permits a claim by a lessor on a lease contract. We note that in Wise v. American General Life Ins. Co., 2005 WL , *7 (E.D. Pa.), the Court indicated that a private right of action under the UTPCPL was limited, and stated that Clearly, was drafted to provide a private right of action to a circumscribed class of consumers injured by unlawful or deceptive trade practices, relying on actions by the attorney general to remedy practices affecting other members of the public-at-large, including potential consumers. See Lauer, 1989 W at * 2. However, since we find that Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the first requirement to assert a private action under the UTPCPL, we do not address herein these two other stated issues raised by Defendant Anadarko. We recognize that if Plaintiffs file a motion for leave of court to file an amended pleading with respect to Count V, these issues may be reasserted as to whether any amendment of their UTPCPL claim would be futile. Nonetheless, at this time, Plaintiffs have not filed a proper motion for leave of court to file an amended pleading with respect to Count V. 9
10 Case 412-cv MWB-TMB Document 32 Filed 11/15/12 Page 10 of 13 Fauver, 213 F.3d 113, 115 (3d Cir. 2000)(The futility exception means that a complaint, as amended, would fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted); Alston v. Parker, 363 F. 3d 229, 235 (3d Cir. 2004). We agree with Defendant Anadarko (Doc. 23, pp. 3-4) that while Plaintiffs simply request (Doc. 21, p. 14) the court to allow them to amend their Complaint with respect to their UTPCPL claim if it determines that they failed to state sufficient facts, Plaintiffs must file a motion for leave of court to amend their Count V. We find that Plaintiffs ability to amend their original Complaint with respect to Count V once as a matter or course sans a motion, lapsed since it is now well more than 21 days after Defendant Anadarko filed its Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss. (Doc. 16). At this posture of the case, Plaintiffs cannot simply file an Amended Complaint without seeking leave of court to do so. Since Plaintiffs seek to file an Amended Complaint more than 21 days after Defendant Anadarko s Motion to Dismiss, we find that Plaintiffs must file a Motion for Leave to file an Amended Complaint, together with their proposed Amended Complaint and a support brief. See Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 15.1, M.D. Pa.; see also Rule 7 15(a)(1)(B). 7 Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs amendment of pleadings and provides as follows (a) Amendments Before Trial (1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within (A) 21 days after serving it, or 10
11 Case 412-cv MWB-TMB Document 32 Filed 11/15/12 Page 11 of 13 Accordingly, we shall recommend that Defendant Anadarko s Motion to Dismiss Count V of Plaintiffs Complaint (Doc. 16) be granted and that Count V be dismissed without prejudice. V. Recommendation. Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that Defendant Anadarko s Motion to Dismiss Count V of Plaintiffs Complaint (Doc. 16) be granted and that Count V be dismissed without prejudice. It is also recommended that this case be remanded to the undersigned for 8 further proceedings. Dated November 15, 2012 s/ Thomas M. Blewitt THOMAS M. BLEWITT United States Magistrate Judge (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b) See Santos, supra. (2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party s written consent or the court s leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires. 8 If our Report and Recommendation is adopted, Defendant Anadarko will be directed to file an Answer to Plaintiffs remaining Counts in their Complaint. The case will then be set for a scheduling conference. 11
12 Case 412-cv MWB-TMB Document 32 Filed 11/15/12 Page 12 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LINDA M. HAGERMAN, and CIVIL ACTION NO. 4CV HOWARD R. HAGERMAN, a/k/a BILL HAGERMAN, wife and husband, Plaintiffs (Judge Conner) v. (Magistrate Judge Blewitt) ANADARKO E & P CO., LP, JIM BOURBEAU LAND SERVICE, LLC, and DAVID K. SHIPE, a/k/a DAVE SHIPE, Defendants NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the undersigned has entered the foregoing Report and Recommendation dated November 15, Any party may obtain a review of the Report and Recommendation pursuant to Rule 72.3, which provides Any party may object to a magistrate judge s proposed findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or matter described in 28 U.S.C. 636 (b)(1)(b) or making a recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a habeas corpus petition within ten (10) days after being served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report to which objection is made and the basis for such objections. The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge, however, 12
13 Case 412-cv MWB-TMB Document 32 Filed 11/15/12 Page 13 of 13 need conduct a new hearing only in his or her discretion or where required by law, and may consider the record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights. s/ Thomas M. Blewitt THOMAS M. BLEWITT United States Magistrate Judge Dated November 15,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOBE DANGANAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GUARDIAN PROTECTION SERVICES, Defendant.
More informationCase 2:16-cv LDD Document 30 Filed 08/08/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:16-cv-01544-LDD Document 30 Filed 08/08/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOSEPH W. PRINCE, et al. : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : BAC HOME LOANS
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOHN G. JULIA, Plaintiff, v. ELEXCO LAND SERVICES, INC. and SOUTHWESTERN ENERGY PRODUCTION COMPANY, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-CV-590
More informationCase 3:09-cv ARC Document 17 Filed 05/03/2010 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 3:09-cv-00589-ARC Document 17 Filed 05/03/2010 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CHARLES PUZA, JR., and FRANCES CLEMENTS, Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL
More informationCase 3:12-cv ARC Document 34 Filed 06/05/13 Page 1 of 9
Case 3:12-cv-00576-ARC Document 34 Filed 06/05/13 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT A. LINCOLN and MARY O. LINCOLN, Plaintiffs, v. MAGNUM LAND
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION DORIS LOTT, Plaintiff, v. No. 15-00439-CV-W-DW LVNV FUNDING LLC, et al., Defendants. ORDER Before the Court is Defendants
More informationCase 3:10-cv KRG Document 28 Filed 03/25/11 Page 1 of 10
Case 3:10-cv-00013-KRG Document 28 Filed 03/25/11 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DARRELL DUFOUR & Civil Action No.3: 10-cv-00013 KATHY DUFOUR
More informationCase 3:09-cv ARC Document 19 Filed 04/28/2010 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 3:09-cv-00188-ARC Document 19 Filed 04/28/2010 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM S. CAREY and GERMAINE A. CAREY, Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL
More informationOne to Keep a Close Eye On Bradford County Permits the Pennsylvania Attorney General to Proceed with Novel Claims against Two Oil and Gas Operators
One to Keep a Close Eye On Bradford County Permits the Pennsylvania Attorney General to Proceed with Novel Claims against Two Oil and Gas Operators By Kenneth J. Witzel, Member at Frost Brown Todd LLC,
More information3:14-cv MGL Date Filed 10/23/14 Entry Number 24 Page 1 of 5
3:14-cv-01982-MGL Date Filed 10/23/14 Entry Number 24 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION Melinda K. Lindler, Plaintiff, vs. Civil Action
More informationSupport. ECF No. 16. On September 9, 2016, the Plaintiff filed
Brown v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC et al Doc. 33 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Norfolk Division CLIFFORD A. BR019N, III, Plaintiff, V. ACTION NO: 2:16cv476 BIMBO
More informationZervos v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Dist. Court, D. Maryland In Re: Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10)
Zervos v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Dist. Court, D. Maryland 2012 MEMORANDUM JAMES K. BREDAR, District Judge. CHRISTINE ZERVOS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, Defendant. Civil No. 1:11-cv-03757-JKB.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
PATROSKI v. RIDGE et al Doc. 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SUSAN PATROSKI, Plaintiff, 2: 11-cv-1065 v. PRESSLEY RIDGE, PRESSLEY RIDGE FOUNDATION, and B.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 6:10-cv-00414-GAP-DAB Document 102 Filed 01/23/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID 726 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. and NURDEEN MUSTAFA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Plaintiffs,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case :-cv-0-gmn-vcf Document 0 Filed 0// Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA RAYMOND JAMES DUENSING, JR. individually, vs. Plaintiff, DAVID MICHAEL GILBERT, individually and in his
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 3:09-cv-00077-JMM Document 15 Filed 09/17/09 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LOUISE ALFANO and : No. 3:09cv77 SANDRA PRZYBYLSKI, : Plaintiffs
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case :0-cv-000-KJD-LRL Document Filed 0//0 Page of UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 0 THE CUPCAKERY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ANDREA BALLUS, et al., Defendants. Case No. :0-CV-00-KJD-LRL ORDER
More informationChristopher Kemezis v. James Matthews, Jr.
2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-20-2010 Christopher Kemezis v. James Matthews, Jr. Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-4844
More informationCase Doc 28 Filed 04/08/16 EOD 04/08/16 16:05:16 Pg 1 of 10 SO ORDERED: April 8, James M. Carr United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 15-50150 Doc 28 Filed 04/08/16 EOD 04/08/16 16:05:16 Pg 1 of 10 SO ORDERED: April 8, 2016. James M. Carr United States Bankruptcy Judge UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA OPINION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL V. PELLICANO Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION No. 11-406 v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants. OPINION Slomsky,
More informationCase 2:15-cv CDJ Document 31 Filed 03/16/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:15-cv-00773-CDJ Document 31 Filed 03/16/16 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA JOHN D. ORANGE, on behalf of himself : and all others similarly
More informationCase 4:16-cv JSW Document 32 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 7 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case :-cv-0-jsw Document Filed /0/ Page of NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 DAVID R. REED, v. Plaintiff, KRON/IBEW LOCAL PENSION PLAN, et al., Defendants.
More informationv. ) Civil Action No
Case 2:09-cv-01275-GLL Document 34 Filed 05/26/10 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SEEDS OF PEACE COLLECTIVE and THREE RIVERS CLIMATE CONVERGENCE,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s).
Western National Insurance Group v. Hanlon et al Doc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * 0 WESTERN NATIONAL INSURANCE GROUP, v. CARRIE M. HANLON, ESQ., et al., Plaintiff(s), Defendant(s).
More information6:13-cv MGL Date Filed 02/21/14 Entry Number 32 Page 1 of 10
6:13-cv-00257-MGL Date Filed 02/21/14 Entry Number 32 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Gregory Somers, ) Case No. 6:13-cv-00257-MGL-JDA
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 3:18-cv-01549-JMM Document 8 Filed 10/11/18 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA NICHOLAS KING, JOAN KING, : No. 3:18cv1549 and KRISTEN KING, : Plaintiffs
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Bradley v. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania et al Doc. 19 Att. 1 Case 4:09-cv-00008-JEJ Document 18 Filed 06/19/2009 Page 1 of 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION. ) No. 2:10-cv JPM-dkv
West et al v. Americare Long Term Specialty Hospital, LLC Doc. 36 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION LINDA WEST and VICKI WATSON as ) surviving natural
More informationCivil Action No (JMV) (Mf) Plaintiffs alleges that Defendant has wrongfully
Not for Publication UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY ELIZABETH JOHNSON, Plaintiff V. ENCOMPASS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. Civil Action No. 17-3527 (JMV) (Mf) OPINION Dockets.Justia.com
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Farley v. EIHAB Human Services, Inc. Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT FARLEY and : No. 3:12cv1661 ANN MARIE FARLEY, : Plaintiffs : (Judge Munley)
More informationCase 3:12-cv ARC Document 20 Filed 05/09/13 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 3:12-cv-02333-ARC Document 20 Filed 05/09/13 Page 1 of 13 KEN ZUPP, Plaintiff, v. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:CV-12-2333 (JUDGE CAPUTO)
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-20019 Document: 00512805760 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/16/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ROGER LAW, v. Summary Calendar Plaintiff-Appellant United States Court of
More information2:12-cv DPH-MKM Doc # 10 Filed 04/30/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 99 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:12-cv-15205-DPH-MKM Doc # 10 Filed 04/30/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 99 MIQUEL ROSS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 12-15205 v. HONORABLE
More informationCase 9:16-cv KAM Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2017 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 9:16-cv-81973-KAM Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2017 Page 1 of 13 MIGUEL RIOS AND SHIRLEY H. RIOS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 16-81973-CIV-MARRA/MATTHEWMAN
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
e-watch Inc. v. Avigilon Corporation Doc. 40 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION e-watch INC., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. H-13-0347 AVIGILON CORPORATION,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-cv-446-MOC-DSC
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-cv-446-MOC-DSC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON. DAVID C. MCCARTY, et al., : Case No.
McCarty et al v. National Union Fire Insurance Company Of Pittsburgh, PA et al Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON DAVID C. MCCARTY, et al.,
More informationv. DECISION AND ORDER 10-CV-388S 1. Plaintiffs, Jacob Gruber and Lynn Gruber commenced this action on May 11,
Gruber et al v. Erie County Water Authority et al Doc. 35 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JACOB GRUBER and LYNN GRUBER, Plaintiffs, v. DECISION AND ORDER 10-CV-388S ERIE COUNTY
More informationCase 1:16-cv KLM Document 26 Filed 07/05/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO ORDER
Case 1:16-cv-02000-KLM Document 26 Filed 07/05/17 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 18 Civil Action No. 16-cv-02000-KLM GARY THUROW, v. Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
More informationCase 0:10-cv WPD Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2011 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:10-cv-61985-WPD Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2011 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GARDEN-AIRE VILLAGE SOUTH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC., a Florida
More informationCase 1:13-cv RHB Doc #14 Filed 04/17/14 Page 1 of 8 Page ID#88
Case 1:13-cv-01235-RHB Doc #14 Filed 04/17/14 Page 1 of 8 Page ID#88 TIFFANY STRAND, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION v. Plaintiff, CORINTHIAN COLLEGES,
More informationUnited States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
Case 4:11-cv-00417-MHS -ALM Document 13 Filed 10/28/11 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 249 United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION ALISE MALIKYAR V. CASE NO. 4:11-CV-417 Judge Schneider/
More informationCase 4:11-cv MWB Document 21 Filed 01/16/13 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 4:11-cv-02241-MWB Document 21 Filed 01/16/13 Page 1 of 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT J. STEWART, EDNA L. : Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-2241 STEWART,
More informationHarold Wilson v. City of Philadelphia
2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-1-2011 Harold Wilson v. City of Philadelphia Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 10-2246
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Plaintiffs, (SAPORITO, M.J.) MEMORANDUM
Case 3:16-cv-00319-JFS Document 22 Filed 03/29/17 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA STEVEN ARCHAVAGE, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other similarly situated,
More informationAlexandra Hlista v. Safeguard Properties, LLC
2016 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-5-2016 Alexandra Hlista v. Safeguard Properties, LLC Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2016
More informationPaul McArdle v. Verizon Communications Inc
2014 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 5-23-2014 Paul McArdle v. Verizon Communications Inc Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 13-4207
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) OPINION AND ORDER
Emerick v. Blue Cross Blue Shield Anthem Doc. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA SOUTH BEND DIVISION WILLIAM EMERICK, pro se, Plaintiff, v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD ANTHEM, Defendant.
More information2016 PA Super 222. Appeal from the Order June 24, 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County Civil Division at No(s): A
2016 PA Super 222 THOMAS KIRWIN AND DIANNE KIRWIN IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellants SUSSMAN AUTOMOTIVE D/B/A SUSSMAN MAZDA AND ERIC SUSSMAN v. Appellees No. 2628 EDA 2015 Appeal from the
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 3:17-cv-01757-KM Document 10 Filed 11/30/17 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MARTIN FOSS and SUSAN FOSS, : No. 3:17cv1757 Plaintiffs : : (Judge
More informationCase 0:14-cv KMM Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2015 Page 1 of 8
Case 0:14-cv-62567-KMM Document 44 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/15/2015 Page 1 of 8 TRACY SANBORN and LOUIS LUCREZIA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
More informationCase 9:09-cv RC Document 100 Filed 08/10/12 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 991 **NOT FOR PRINTED PUBLICATION**
Case 9:09-cv-00124-RC Document 100 Filed 08/10/12 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 991 **NOT FOR PRINTED PUBLICATION** IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION UNITED
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JAN 12 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES ex rel. DAVID VATAN, M.D., v. Plaintiff-Appellant, QTC
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:13-CV-678-MOC-DSC
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO: 3:13-CV-678-MOC-DSC LEE S. JOHNSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) J.P. MORGAN CHASE NATIONAL
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SOUTHERN DIVISION. v. Civil Action No. 8:13-cv AW MEMORANDUM OPINION
Herring v. Wells Fargo Home Loans et al Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND SOUTHERN DIVISION MARVA JEAN HERRING, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 8:13-cv-02049-AW WELLS
More informationCase 1:12-cv YK-TMB Document 9 Filed 08/07/12 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 1:12-cv-01328-YK-TMB Document 9 Filed 08/07/12 Page 1 of 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DARYL T WAIN GIBSON, SR., : CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:CV-12-1328 :
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. Plaintiff, OPINION
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY JOEVANNIE SOLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No: 18-10255 (SDW) (SCM) v. Plaintiff,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. Richmond Division. v. ) Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-799 MEMORANDUM OPINION
Harmon v. CB Squared Services Incorporated Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division OLLIE LEON HARMON III, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 3:08-CV-799
More informationMonroe Merritt v. Alan Fogel
2009 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 10-22-2009 Monroe Merritt v. Alan Fogel Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 08-3622 Follow
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * * ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
-VPC Crow v. Home Loan Center, Inc. dba LendingTree Loans et al Doc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 0 HEATHER L. CROW, Plaintiff, v. HOME LOAN CENTER, INC.; et al., Defendants. * * * :-cv-0-lrh-vpc
More informationCase 4:15-cv A Document 17 Filed 11/25/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 430
Case 4:15-cv-00720-A Document 17 Filed 11/25/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID 430 US D!',THiCT cor KT NORTiiER\J li!''trlctoftexas " IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT r- ---- ~-~ ' ---~ NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXA
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO CIV-COHN/SELTZER ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT S MOTION TO DISMISS
GERI SIANO CARRIUOLO, et al., vs. Plaintiffs, GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant. / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 14-61429-CIV-COHN/SELTZER ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT S MOTION
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Stubblefield v. Follett Higher Education Group, Inc. Doc. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION ROBERT STUBBLEFIELD, Plaintiff, v. Case No.: 8:10-cv-824-T-24-AEP FOLLETT
More informationCase 1:15-cv KLM Document 34 Filed 09/16/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Case 1:15-cv-01927-KLM Document 34 Filed 09/16/16 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 12 Civil Action No. 15-cv-01927-KLM IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO GINA M. KILPATRICK, individually
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
SCHLEIG v. BOROUGH OF NAZARETH et al Doc. 37 STEPHEN SCHLEIG, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, v. BOROUGH OF NAZARETH, THOMAS M. TRACHTA, MAYOR FRED
More informationUnited States District Court
Case :0-cv-00-RS Document 0 Filed 0//00 Page of **E-Filed** September, 00 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 0 AUREFLAM CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, PHO HOA PHAT I, INC., ET AL, Defendants. FOR THE NORTHERN
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:12-CV REDRIDGE FINANCE GROUP, LLC
Leed HR, LLC v. Redridge Finance Group, LLC Doc. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY LOUISVILLE DIVISION CASE NO. 3:12-CV-00797 LEED HR, LLC PLAINTIFF v. REDRIDGE FINANCE GROUP,
More informationCase 1:17-cv NMG Document 60 Filed 09/27/18 Page 1 of 18. United States District Court District of Massachusetts
Case 1:17-cv-10007-NMG Document 60 Filed 09/27/18 Page 1 of 18 NORMA EZELL, LEONARD WHITLEY, and ERICA BIDDINGS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LEXINGTON INSURANCE
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION. Case No. 3:16-cv-178-J-MCR ORDER
Case 3:16-cv-00178-MCR Document 61 Filed 10/24/17 Page 1 of 9 PageID 927 MARY R. JOHNSON, Plaintiff, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION vs. Case No. 3:16-cv-178-J-MCR
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION (Doc. Nos. 21, 22) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE
NOT FOR PUBLICATION (Doc. Nos. 21, 22) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE : CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, : INC., : : Plaintiff, : Civil No. 14-3829 (RBK/KMW)
More informationCase 2:13-cv SM-MBN Document 417 Filed 11/20/15 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
Case 2:13-cv-04811-SM-MBN Document 417 Filed 11/20/15 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CALVIN HOWARD, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 13-4811 c/w 13-6407 and 14-1188
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ORDER AND REASONS
Kareem v. Markel Southwest Underwriters, Inc., et. al. Doc. 45 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA AMY KAREEM d/b/a JACKSON FASHION, LLC VERSUS MARKEL SOUTHWEST UNDERWRITERS, INC.
More informationCase 1:13-cv LPS Document 34 Filed 07/17/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 964
Case 1:13-cv-01186-LPS Document 34 Filed 07/17/15 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 964 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ROSALYN JOHNSON Plaintiff, V. Civ. Act. No. 13-1186-LPS ACE
More informationCase: , 07/31/2018, ID: , DktEntry: 60-1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Case: 16-56602, 07/31/2018, ID: 10960794, DktEntry: 60-1, Page 1 of 5 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED JUL 31 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KEVIN T. LEVINE, an individual and on behalf of the general public, vs. Plaintiff, BIC USA, INC., a Delaware corporation,
More informationCase 8:13-cv RWT Document 37 Filed 03/13/14 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Case 8:13-cv-03056-RWT Document 37 Filed 03/13/14 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BRENDA LEONARD-RUFUS EL, * RAHN EDWARD RUFUS EL * * Plaintiffs, * * v. * Civil
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO OPINION. Slomsky, J.
TONER v. GEICO INSURANCE COMPANY Doc. 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT W. TONER, v. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-0458 GEICO INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENWOOD DIVISION
Wanning et al v. Duke Energy Carolinas LLC Doc. 17 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENWOOD DIVISION John F. Wanning and Margaret B. Wanning, C/A No. 8:13-839-TMC
More informationDOC#:- -:-:-+--+.~- I
' Case 1:17-cv-08674-AKH Document 41 Filed 04/30/18 USDCSDNY Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -------------------------------------------------------------- X DQCUM.E,T
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Myerski v. First Acceptance Insurance Company, Inc. et al Doc. 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA RICHARD MYERSKI, : : Plaintiff, :CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-488 : v.
More informationCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL ====== PRESENT: THE HONORABLE S. JAMES OTERO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 2:11-cv-04175-SJO -PLA UNITED Document STATES 11 DISTRICT Filed 08/10/11 COURT Page 1 of Priority 5 Page ID #:103 Send Enter Closed JS-5/JS-6 Scan Only TITLE: James McFadden et. al. v. National Title
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA VERSUS NO: TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. ET AL.
DAVIS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 13-6365 TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. ET AL. SECTION: "J" (4) ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is a Motion for
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CASE 0:13-cv-02630-ADM-JJK Document 16 Filed 02/05/14 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Maria Twigg, Civ. No. 13-2630 ADM/JJK Plaintiff, v. U.S. Bank, NA, as Trustee for the
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED APR 18 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS LINDA RUBENSTEIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 1:14-cv-00240-SHR Document 28 Filed 06/16/15 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA GUY F. MILITELLO, : : Civ. No. 14-cv-0240 Plaintiff : : v. : :
More informationJean Coulter v. Butler County Children
2013 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 1-31-2013 Jean Coulter v. Butler County Children Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 12-3931
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION (at London) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) *** *** *** ***
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY SOUTHERN DIVISION (at London TASHA BAIRD, V. Plaintiff, BAYER HEALTHCARE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant. Civil Action No. 6: 13-077-DCR MEMORANDUM
More informationCase: 4:15-cv RWS Doc. #: 30 Filed: 05/04/15 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 183
Case: 4:15-cv-00464-RWS Doc. #: 30 Filed: 05/04/15 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 183 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION GRYPHON INVESTMENTS III, LLC, Plaintiff, Case No.
More informationAlder Run Land LP v. Northeast Natural Energy LLC
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-10-2015 Alder Run Land LP v. Northeast Natural Energy LLC Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 310-cv-01384-JMM Document 28 Filed 07/05/11 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA SCOTT ALLEN FAY, No. 310cv1384 Plaintiff (Judge Munley) v. DOMINION
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Safe Streets Alliance et al v. Alternative Holistic Healing, LLC et al Doc. 140 Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00349-REB-CBS SAFE STREETS ALLIANCE, PHILLIS WINDY HOPE REILLY, and MICHAEL P. REILLY, v. Plaintiffs,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Case No. 12-cv HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION ELCOMETER, INC., Plaintiff, vs. Case No. 12-cv-14628 HON. GERSHWIN A. DRAIN TQC-USA, INC., et al., Defendants. / ORDER DENYING
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 8:12-cv-00215-FMO-RNB Document 202 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 6 Page ID #:7198 Present: The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin, United States District Judge Vanessa Figueroa None None Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
More informationCase 2:09-cv GCS-MKM Document 24 Filed 12/22/2009 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 2:09-cv-11239-GCS-MKM Document 24 Filed 12/22/2009 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION BRIAN MCLEAN and GAIL CLIFFORD, Plaintiffs, vs. Case No.
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. Plaintiffs, September 18, 2017
JERSEY STRONG PEDIATRICS, LLC v. WANAQUE CONVALESCENT CENTER et al Doc. 29 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
More informationCase 2:09-cv JHS Document 92 Filed 08/30/13 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:09-cv-00679-JHS Document 92 Filed 08/30/13 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA STEPHANIE COLEMAN AND JANELLE BOWMER, on behalf of themselves
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY OWENSBORO DIVISION MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:13CV-00071-JHM UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY OWENSBORO DIVISION HALIFAX CENTER, LLC, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. PBI BANK, INC. DEFENDANT MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Morales v. United States of America Doc. 10 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY : NICHOLAS MORALES, JR., : : Plaintiff, : v. : Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-2578-BRM-LGH
More informationCase 0:17-cv WPD Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/11/2017 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:17-cv-61266-WPD Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/11/2017 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA SILVIA LEONES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
More informationCase 1:11-cv RGA Document 50 Filed 07/01/11 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 568 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Case 1:11-cv-00217-RGA Document 50 Filed 07/01/11 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 568 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE KENNETH HOCH, : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : BARBARA
More information